Localizing the SDGs A tool to assess the applicability of the

UN Sustainable Development Goal Indicators for Cities

Acknowledgements

This guide was written by Luis Patricio and Michael Courey from the London Poverty

Research Centre.

The authors are deeply grateful for invaluable feedback and shared experiences

from Roxanne Ridell (UWEM), Jerry White (APHC), Martha Powell (LCF), Vanessa

Dolishny (LCF), Matthew Meyer (LHSC), Kate Pearce (WGSI), Julie Wright (WGSI),

Hayley Rutherford (WGSI), Cameron McCordic (SDSN Canada), Stefan Jungcurt

(IISD) and Jennifer Temmer (IISD).

We also would like to thank Molly Miksa (Molly Miksa Photography) for all the

photos used in this report.

CC Creative Commons License

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0

International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Licensees may copy, redistribute and make derivative works of this material in any

medium or format for only non-commercial purposes and where the source, London

Poverty Research Centre at King’s, is attributed.

_______________________

UWEM - United Way Elgin-Middlesex

LCF - London Community Foundation

APHC - Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium

LHSC - London Health Sciences Centre

WGSI - Waterloo Global Science Initiative

SDSN - Sustainable Development Solutions Network

IISD - International Institute for Sustainable Development

Executive Summary

This report presents an evaluation tool to help municipalities with the first step in

creating a local SDG tracking system. This tool is a decision tree that can be used

by any group in any country trying to determine which of the 244 SDG indicators

are applicable and relevant to the local level. The tool is constructed in such a way

that it should create consistency in the local tracking system of similar cities and to

accommodate differences between cities.

It is important to recognize that the complex challenges our cities are facing today

are all interconnected. Be it homelessness, climate change or the opioid crisis. To

address those challenges in an efficient way it is necessary to align the work and

actions of disparate groups of local actors by creating a shared definition and

common language for progress. The Sustainable Development Goals constitute a

framework that has been adopted in different sectors and across different levels of

government in Canada and around the world, integrating social, economic and

environmental concerns.

This initial evaluation of all the SDG indicators for London Ontario identified 140

applicable indicators and 104 non-applicable indicators. Applying the decision

making tree, we identified that 98 indicators could be used (maintain) as they are

and 42 would need to be modified (localize+proxy). 48 cannot be tracked (discard)

and 56 indicators need further examination to determine if they are relevant (park).

The initial list of applicable indicators identified in this report will be validated with

several of our community partners. Since the community engagement is a costly

process, using the localization tool is a relevant first step to optimize this process

by identifying which indicators don’t need to be part of the wider discussion or

require special attention.

About the Report Partners

London For All initiative is a community’s plan to end poverty in a generation. The

impetus for the plan is a belief that a community cannot reach its potential when

people lack or are denied the economic, social or cultural resources to participate. It

is time to end poverty so that everyone gets the opportunity to reach their full

potential.

City of London created the Mayor’s Advisory Panel on Poverty to develop a set of

action-oriented recommendations on how we can address poverty more effectively

as a community. This project emerged from the City of London’s poverty reduction

strategy.

United Way Elgin Middlesex was named Lead Agency to implement London for

All strategy and it is the organization responsible to bring all partners together.

United Way is a leader in understanding the root causes of social issues and

bringing together people and resources to find lasting solutions. United Way works

to create real change in people’s lives – meaningful, positive, lasting change. Not

just for today, but for the long term. And that means a better community for us all.

Inspiring people to come together, we have the power to make a real difference in

people’s lives and in our community.

London Poverty Research Centre at King’s was commissioned to develop a

framework based on the SDGs that can be used by different community partners to

track progress of the London For All initiative moving forward.

LPRC employs a range of research, knowledge mobilization, and community

organizing approaches that are intended to move our community toward positive

systemic changes. This includes the task of better understanding the context and

consequences of poverty in London, exploring/implementing best-practices in

creating change, and cultivating opportunities for collective impact.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Acknowledgements 1

II. Executive Summary 2

III. About partners 3

Introduction 6

Our Approach 10

Localization Tool 13

Preliminary list of local indicators 17

Next steps 20

References 21

Appendix I 23

Appendix II 24

“When it comes to sustainable

development, all countries are

‘developing countries’, … as no one

country has yet to achieve sustainable

development.” Getting Started with the SDGs in Cities1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to share a decision making process we have created to

help municipalities with the first step in creating a local Sustainable Development

Goal (SDG) tracking system. We have created a decision making tree that can be

used by any group in any country trying to build their own municipal system and

we believe that it will be helpful in preparing these groups for the public

engagement aspect of their work. The decision making tree focuses on all 244 SDG

indicators to determine which indicators are applicable and relevant to the local

level. The tool is constructed in such a way that it should create consistency in the

local tracking system of similar cities and to accommodate differences between

cities.

It is essential to understand that this tool is not sufficient to develop a final list of

local indicators, but that once this list is created the real work of engaging citizens

and stakeholders to refine the focus of where actions will be targeted can begin.

The present report contains

● the methodology employed to evaluate the applicability of the 244 indicators

in the SDG framework in a local context

● the initial evaluation of all the indicators for London Ontario

● The spreadsheet template used to perform the evaluation

Our hope is that the methodology we developed can be used or adapted by other

cities to identify their own list of applicable indicators.

WHY

The present report is part of a project which started in 2016 with the ambitious goal

to end poverty in London Ontario in one generation. Following six months of

consultation, the London for All: A Roadmap to End Poverty2 report was

released on behalf of the Mayor’s advisory panel on poverty. In 2017 the United

Way Elgin Middlesex was named Lead Agency to implement the plan which included

112 recommendations in eight focus areas. More than 60 stakeholder organizations

participate in the process of identifying, updating, tracking, and implementing 112

recommendations. And 38 individuals identifying with lived or living experience are

involved as key decision-makers.

7

Now entering the third and final year of the project with approximately half of the

recommendations completed, this report is a first step in creating a framework that

will help guide poverty reduction work in the city moving forward, but in a way that

intentionally casts a wider net and situates poverty reduction work as intimately

connected with environmental and social justice work.

To build on the work of London For All and thrust the work into the future in a more

integrated manner the Sustainable Development Goals were chosen as the guiding

framework. The London Poverty Research Centre at King’s was commissioned to

lead the translation of the indicators into meaningful measurements at the local

level. In doing so, it is intended that this can provide a platform for common

measurement across community organizations, social service agencies and funders

to evaluate their outcomes.

The ultimate goal of London For All is to allow everyone to reach their full potential.

This is aligned with one of the main principles of the Sustainable Development

Goals: “leave no one behind”. This will inevitably challenge the current economic

and political systems, governance structures and business models that foster the

concentration of wealth, income and decision‐making power at the top.

In order to achieve this goal, the first step was to gain broad public input, hearing

from over 1,000 Londoners in more than a hundred meetings. An action plan (112

recommendations) emerged from those conversations. The implementation has

been a coordinated effort of public, private and nonprofit sectors. Moving forward, it

is crucial to understand what is working and what is not, to ensure that the

available resources are being used in the most efficient way. This will only be

achieved by having consistent and up-to-date information to track areas of

progress.

By using a multi-dimensional framework to track progress such as the SDGs, it is

possible to:

● create a shared definition and common language for progress

● set a baseline for measuring progress and ensure uniform metrics

● emphasize outcomes, collective impact, and results, rather than focusing on

inputs/outputs

● align the work and actions of disparate groups of local actors (intersectional

and interscalar)

● share learning and expertise and promote best practices

● promote transparency and accountability in social impact work

8

The Sustainable Development Goals can provide a language to integrate social,

economic and environmental concerns into a single framework that has been used

not only among local actors from different sectors but also across different levels of

government. The Canadian voluntary national review shows the commitment of the

Federal government to supporting this framework: “The Government of Canada will

... develop a national strategy on the 2030 Agenda through collaboration with all

levels of government, Indigenous peoples, civil society and the private sector”3

Even though the SDGs are global goals established by many different Countries

around the world, there is a consensus that the implementation of the global or

national SDG strategy occurs at the local level. In fact, a European report from

2019 identified that “around 65 percent of the Agenda 2030 goals could not be

realized fully without the contributions of regional and local governments.”4 And in

order to contribute, municipalities need to play an active role in defining the SDG-

related policies relevant to their local context, as well as collecting local data and

tracking the progress towards sustainable development.

“Some of the most innovative SDG-

focused local plans released over the

past several years...represent the

‘productive tension’ between the

universality of the SDG and the

context-specific nature of measuring

progress in specific communities.” Empowering Canadians through sustainable development5

10

OUR APPROACH

“Localization refers to the process of adapting, implementing, and monitoring the

SDGs at the local level.”6 Translating the SDGs to the local level is a “two-way

street” approach where a top-down and a bottom-up process complement each

other. Getting to know the Global Goals and identifying the subset of indicators that

might be applicable and/or relevant to a city is just the initial step for localizing

them. Each city is responsible for its local engagement strategy to identify their

local priorities that can be aligned with the SDGs. Some examples of how cities

Obtaining a subset of relevant local indicators from the original list of 244

indicators, allows for a more efficient matching process and attempts to maintain as

many indicators as possible for sub-national review purposes.

We reviewed more than 20 documents exploring different aspects of the SDG

framework including community engagement, sub-national indicators, contextual

analysis, and data interoperability. Sources are mostly from Canada and a few

more from the United States, Europe and Japan (see Figure 1). More than 50%

were published or updated within the last year (see Figure 2). In addition to the

written documents, we identified and connected with local and provincial groups for

collaboration opportunities and feedback.

Figure 1. Source reports by location Figure 2. Source reports by year of

publication

Our literature review had two main goals:

● Find examples of cities that applied a localization process and access their

final list of local indicators.

● Find models or templates to localize indicators to the city level.

Ongoing

11

We were unable to locate any specific examples of systematic processes of

localizing the SDG indicators. Most examples focused either on the Goals broadly7,8

or on the target levels9. We found out early in the process that we were

contributing a unique approach to creating a local set of indicators by focusing on

the list provided by the UN. However, early on our literature review, we learned

that we would be able to apply only a fraction of the 244 indicators within the 169

targets. A report published in 2017 by the Brookings Institute10 analyzing all the

169 targets and 244 indicators, identified only “78 SDG targets that are outcome-

focused, relevant to high-income countries, and quantitatively assessable”. Even

among those, only 61 targets (containing 73 underlying indicators) could be

assessed due to data availability. That represents only 36% of targets and 30%

of the indicators. Other reports present similar results in the United States:

“Prakash et al. (2017)11 identify 49 indicators to assess SDG starting positions of

the 100 largest American metropolitan areas. Greene and Meixell of the Urban

Institute (2017)12 examine comparable metropolitan areas to identify which SDG

targets are relevant and measurable. They find that 103 targets are relevant to

U.S. cities and 68 are measurable using publicly available data.”

Similar findings also in European Countries such as Finland’s 2016 Voluntary

National Review13 that found that less than half of the indicators had national data

available. Or Sweden’s 2017 Voluntary National Review14 who identified only 120

indicators as relevant and with the available data, “noting that many of the targets

require more precise ambitions in order to enable future follow-up.”15

Those results align with our own findings regarding the indicators where we could

easily identify indicators that are not applicable to London Ontario (i.e. “marine

life”) or Canada (i.e. “volume of remittances for financial aid”).

We identified several Canadian initiatives that are matching their own strategies to

the 17 goals and other initiatives that developed their own set of indicators inspired

by the SDGs. However, after doing our scan, we are not aware of any other group

in Canada that is working directly with the localization of the 244 indicators. That

information was confirmed by all the local and national partners we engaged with.

"Localizing SDGs is not the

parachuting of global goals into local

context but linking local and regional

government’s agendas with the global

goals and empowering sub-national

governments.” Emilia Saiz, Secretary General Of United Cities And Local

Governments16

13

LOCALIZATION TOOL

CREATING THE LOCALIZATION TOOL FOR INDICATORS

As an attempt to create a tool that could be used in London (and across regions)

we developed a decision making tree intended to help the process be systematic

and objective. This was important because we wanted to limit the impact of our

own biases about what is relevant and what is not. It is important to overcome

these biases because what is measured is what is seen and we know that data can

be a political tool for setting or undermining agendas.

The design of the localization tool for translating the SDG indicators was an iterative

process where a decision tree was refined by analyzing how each one of the original

SDG indicators could be applied in the local context. The evaluation identified five

different possible categories and it was based on the results from pre-existing SDG

efforts and feedback from community partners (see Table 1).

Maintain Indicator can be used as it is or reworded just to make sense in

the London context.

Localize Indicator can be adopted by changing only its scale to the

municipal level

Proxy Indicator needs to be adapted to become clearly quantified or

measurable at the municipal level

Park Indicator is applicable but not necessarily relevant in the local

context (requiring further consultation)

Discard Indicator is not applicable

Table 1. Categories for SDG indicator translation.

There is a sixth category of indicators that is not addressed in this report. The

“Create” box (see Figure 3) represents the potential gaps that started to emerge

during the preliminary evaluation and will be consolidated through community

consultation during the next stage. Issues identified as relevant by the local

community that, even though may fall under one or more of the 17 global goals, it

might not have a specific indicator addressing that need. The new indicators will be

included during the second phase when the bottom-up analysis is implemented.

Including the voices of the most vulnerable groups in our society is a crucial step to

ensure we leave no one behind.

14

The decision tree itself was adapted from the report “Who and What Gets Left

Behind: assessing Canada’s status on SDGs”17 that prioritizes the U.N.’s formal

framework of targets, indicators, and data. In the aforementioned report the

authors focused on examining which SDG targets are relevant to the Canadian

Context. In the current work, we examine which indicators are relevant to the

municipal context.

HOW TO USE THE TOOL

Each one of the 244 indicators was assessed using the decision tree and was

assigned to one of the five possible categories (see Table 1). To help inform our

decision about which variables are relevant to the local context we selected three

key documents to justify why we labelled them as relevant or not. For our context

in London we used the London For All report18, London Community Foundation: vital

signs report19 and City of London 2019-2023 Strategic Plan20.

In addition to the local documents, we used auxiliary sources of reference to

provide further evidence of the applicability of the indicator. For this we used the

classification of SDG outcomes table in the Brookings Institute report (data on the

national level for targets)21 and the StatCan SDG Data Hub22 (data on the national

level for indicators). These sources were used when it was unclear from the local

documents how relevant the indicator was.

We were unable to find any sources of reference that had translated indicators to

the municipal level. All other documents worked at the level of goals or targets. As

such, to the best of our knowledge, the current methodology and list of indicators in

the appendix is the first attempt to do so.

Figure 3. Decision tree to translate SDG indicators to the local level.

15

Question Rationale

Q1: Is indicator

applicable in the London

context?

This question is the first vetting process for filtering indicators

that simply cannot be measured in the local context because

they do not match features. For example, in the London

context any indicators looking at marine life can be discarded

quickly because London is not close to any oceans.

Q2: Is indicator relevant

in the London context?

This question aims to examine if the indicator is relevant to

the local context. That is even if the indicator may be

measuring something in the local context is it significant

enough of an issue to warrant attention in a local tracking

system.

Q3: Is indicator focused

at the municipal level?

This question examines if the indicator is intended to be an

international measurement - and that it is worded as such (i.e.

amount of international aid provided to developing countries).

In the case that the indicator does not specify the level and it

makes sense in the municipal context we answer ‘yes’ to this

question (i.e. mortality rate of children <5).

Q4: Can the indicator be

adopted by only

changing its scale?

This question explores if an indicator can become relevant to

the local level by simply changing the scale of the

measurement. If we can establish a meaningful indicator by

substituting terms such as ‘national’ for ‘local’ then we answer

‘yes’ to this question. If the scale can’t be changed or the

indicator remains unclear even after changing then we answer

‘no’ to this question.

Q5: Is indicator clearly

quantified and

measurable?

This question seeks to identify if the indicator can be used as it

is (maintained) because it is applicable, relevant, and has

clearly measurable variables. If the indicator is vague - in

terms of what exactly should be measured, then we answer

‘no’ to this question.

Q6: Can a proxy

indicator be established?

In this question it has already been determined that the

indicator is applicable and relevant to the local level, but that

it does not clearly state what should be measured (i.e.

convenient access to public transport). In this case, if we can

identify a proxy measure we answer ‘yes’ to this question.

Table 2. Decision nodes to evaluate indicator translation.

16

To further validate the evaluation, two researchers performed independent

assessments of the indicators using the decision tree in Figure 3 (see also Table 2

for additional information about the decision nodes). In most cases the independent

assessments resulted in the same decision outcomes. In the instances where the

researchers selected different categories for an indicator translation, the

evaluations were compared and discussed in order to reach a consensus. The

evaluations were recorded using the localization tool in Appendix I.

17

PRELIMINARY LIST OF LOCAL INDICATORS

We can classify the five different categories into two broad categories by grouping

the decision tree outcomes as follows (see Figure 4):

● Applicable: maintain, localize, proxy

● Non-applicable: park, discard

The initial evaluation shows that 57.4% of the indicators are applicable. We expect

to have a lower number of applicable SDG indicators after the second stage of the

project. When we take a deeper dive with local groups to evaluate relevance and

data availability, we might discover that is not feasible to use some of the indicators

that were initially deemed as applicable. Thus, bringing the number closer to the

previous reports and studies mentioned in the section that describes our approach.

Figure 4. Percentage of applicable and

non-applicable SDG indicators in London

Ontario.

Figure 5. Percentage of SDG indicators in

London Ontario in each of the five

categories.

Figure 5 shows that in this preliminary analysis, the majority of the applicable

indicators could be maintained as they are. However, this number might change

significantly after the additional evaluation of the indicators where they will be

validated with different local community groups to better understand their

relevance, to try to identify existing local indicators, and assess how to obtain the

data to track its progress.

18

A quick overview of the indicators by goal (see Figure 6) can provide a general

picture of the indicators that are not relevant for London Ontario. The most telling

is the SDG #14 - Life Below Water that addresses ocean and marine life which is

not applicable to a non-coastal city. Issues related to rivers, water supply and

treatment are addressed by SDG #6 - Clean Water and Sanitation. Another clear

example of non-applicable indicators are the ones focused on international policies

and/or support to developing countries. This is more evident with the SDG #17 -

Partnerships for the Goals, but it is present in a few other goals as well.

Figure 6. Number of applicable and non-applicable indicators within each individual goal in

London Ontario.

In the next phase of this project, the list of indicators will be validated according to

their relevance and data availability by local stakeholders. The final list of SDG

indicators in the “localized” and “proxy” categories will be translated into

meaningful local indicators.

This approach serves a double purpose: build a city-based indicator set and at the

same time raise awareness about the SDG framework by engaging multiple

stakeholders early in the process. Those are the two initial steps recommended by

the United Nations implementation strategy.

19

You can see an example of each category of translation in Table 3.

For the full list of indicators and their evaluation, see Appendix II at the end of

this document.

Category Examples of indicators

Maintain 11.7.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities the city that is open space for public use for all, by sex, age and persons

with disabilities

Localize 12.1.1 Number of countries with Is there a sustainable consumption and production (SCP) national action plans or SCP mainstreamed as a priority or a target into national municipal

policies

Proxy 12.2.2 Domestic material consumption, domestic material consumption per capita, and domestic material consumption

per GDP

Park 1.5.1 Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population

Discard 14.3.1 Average marine acidity (pH) measured at agreed suite

of representative sampling stations

Table 3. Examples of suggestions for SDG Indicators Translation.

20

NEXT STEPS

The initial list of applicable indicators identified in this report is not a workable set

of local indicators yet. The list still needs to be validated with several of our

community partners. During this validation process we will be able to review the

initial list, identify gaps (create new indicators), determine data availability and

highlight key indicators. Since the community engagement is a costly process,

using the localization tool is a relevant first step to optimize this process by

identifying which indicators don’t need to be part of the wider discussion or require

special attention.

The revision of the local indicators will occur in parallel with the structuring of the

local datasets. Consequently, one or more interfaces will be implemented to enable

different data providers to keep the information up to date and data users to track

and monitor progress on the local indicators. This will also pave the way for writing

our London’s Voluntary Local Review.

Finally, recognizing that cities are complex and dynamic systems, we anticipate that

a periodic review of the local indicators set will be necessary as priorities and

challenges change overtime.

Ensuring the list of local indicators stays relevant keeping the information up to

date will require ongoing efforts.

21

REFERENCES

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1. Kanuri, Chaitanya, et al. "Getting started with the SDGs in Cities." SDSN Available

at: https://sdgcities. guide (2016).

2. United Way Elgin Middlesex. “London For All.” A Roadmap to End Poverty. Available

at: http://unitedwayem.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/London-for-All-final-

report.pdf (2016)

3. Global Affairs Canada. “Canada's Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development: Voluntary National Review” Government of Canada. (2018).

4. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), GmbH, Network

Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe. “Agenda 2030 in my

municipality” (2019).

SECTION 2 - OUR APPROACH

5. Ho, Elaine, and Jeremy Runnals. "Empowering Canadians through sustainable

development" Waterloo Science Global Initiative Available at:

http://wgsi.org/sites/wgsi-live.pi.local/files/Generat ionSDG-Blueprint-

WGSI_2018.pdf (2018).

6. Edwards, Alex, and Natalie Ross. “From global goals to local impact” How

Philanthropy Can Help Achieve the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals in the U.S.

Council of Foundations, USA. (2016)

7. Community Foundations Canada. “Vital Signs: Informing Canada’s 2030 Strategy” A

report to Employment and Social Development Canada (2019).

8. MyPeg. Available at: https://www.mypeg.ca/

9. McArthur, John W., and K. Rasmussen. "Who and what gets left behind." Assessing

Canada's domestic status on the sustainable development goals, Global Development

and Economy at Brookings, Washington DC (2017).

10. ibid.

11. Prakash, Mihir, Katerina Teksoz, Jessica Espey, Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Shank, and

Guido Schmidt-Traub. “The U.S. Cities Sustainable Development Goals Index 2017”

Achieving a Sustainable Urban America. Sustainable Development Solutions Network

- SDSN, New York (2017).

12. Greene, Solomon and Brady Meixell. “Hacking the Sustainable Development Goals,

Can US cities measure up?” Urban Institute, Washington, DC (2017).

13. Government of Finland. “Finland Voluntary National Review 2016”. Available at:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/10164Finland%20HLPF%

20VNR%20Summary%20-%20FINAL%2017.5.2016.pdf

14. Government of Sweden. “Sweden and the 2030 Agenda” Report to the UN High Level

Political Forum 2017 on Sustainable Development (2017). Available at:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/16033Sweden.pdf

15. ibid #9.

22

SECTION 3 - LOCALIZATION TOOL

16. Local 2030. Localizing the SDG. Available at: https://www.localizingthesdgs.org/

17. Ibid #9.

18. Ibid #2.

19. London Community Foundation. “London Vital Signs” Available at

https://www.londonvitalsigns.ca (2018).

20. City of London. “Strategic Plan 2019-2023” Available at

https://getinvolved.london.ca/StratPlan (2019).

21. Ibid #9.

22. StatCan - Government of Canada. Sustainable Development Goals Data Hub.

Available at https://www144.statcan.gc.ca/sdg-odd/index-eng.htm

23

Appendix I

Column Description

Target Original UN target

Indicator Original UN indicator

Target assessment Classification of SDG outcome targets in Canada

performed by the Brookings Institute

StatCanada Indicator National indicator developed by the Sustainable Development Goals Data Hub

Considerations General notes about the UN indicator in the local

context

Local documents Reference to relevant local documents that address the indicator

Evaluation Using the decision tree in Figure 3, choose one of the

five possible categories and fill the cell with ‘1’. Leave the other four categories empty

Suggested local indicator Optional. Fill this information if there is an existing or

potential local indicator.

A template ready to use is available in different formats for download at the

following website:

http://povertyresearch.ca

Please see the Instructions tab on the spreadsheet to learn how to use it.

24

Appendix II

Full list of SDG indicators and their

preliminary assessment.

Indicator Category

1.1.1 Park

1.2.1 Maintain

1.2.2 Proxy

1.3.1 Maintain

1.4.1 Proxy

1.4.2 Proxy

1.5.1 Park

1.5.2 Park

1.5.3 Discard

1.5.4 Maintain

1.a.1 Proxy

1.a.2 Proxy

1.a.3 Maintain

1.b.1 Proxy

Indicator Category

2.1.1 Proxy

2.1.2 Maintain

2.2.1 Park

2.2.2 Maintain

2.3.1 Maintain

2.3.2 Maintain

2.4.1 Proxy

2.5.1 Discard

2.5.2 Maintain

2.a.1 Park

2.a.2 Discard

2.b.1 Discard

2.c.1 Discard

Indicator Category

3.1.1 Maintain

3.1.2 Park

3.2.1 Maintain

3.2.2 Maintain

3.3.1 Maintain

3.3.2 Maintain

3.3.3 Discard

3.3.4 Maintain

3.3.5 Park

3.4.1 Maintain

3.4.2 Maintain

3.5.1 Maintain

3.5.2 Maintain

3.6.1 Maintain

3.7.1 Proxy

3.7.2 Maintain

3.8.1 Proxy

3.8.2 Proxy

3.9.1 Park

3.9.2 Park

3.9.3 Park

3.a.1 Maintain

3.b.1 Maintain

3.b.2 Discard

3.b.3 Park

3.c.1 Maintain

3.d.1 Park

Indicator Category

4.1.1 Maintain

25

4.2.1 Proxy

4.2.2 Maintain

4.3.1 Proxy

4.4.1 Proxy

4.5.1 Maintain

4.6.1 Maintain

4.7.1 Park

4.a.1 Park

4.b.1 Discard

4.c.1 Park

Indicator Category

5.1.1 Maintain

5.2.1 Maintain

5.2.2 Maintain

5.3.1 Park

5.3.2 Park

5.4.1 Maintain

5.5.1 Localize

5.5.2 Maintain

5.6.1 Park

5.6.2 Park

5.a.1 Park

5.a.2 Discard

5.b.1 Park

5.c.1 Localize

Indicator Category

6.1.1 Park

6.2.1 Park

6.3.1 Maintain

6.3.2 Maintain

6.4.1 Proxy

6.4.2 Maintain

6.5.1 Maintain

6.5.2 Park

6.6.1 Proxy

6.a.1 Discard

6.b.1 Maintain

Indicator Category

7.1.1 Park

7.1.2 Proxy

7.2.1 Maintain

7.3.1 Maintain

7.a.1 Discard

7.b.1 Park

Indicator Category

8.1.1 Maintain

8.2.1 Maintain

8.3.1 Proxy

8.4.1 Proxy

8.4.2 Proxy

8.5.1 Maintain

8.5.2 Maintain

8.6.1 Maintain

8.7.1 Park

8.8.1 Maintain

8.8.2 Park

8.9.1 Maintain

8.9.2 Proxy

8.10.1 Park

8.10.2 Park

8.a.1 Discard

8.b.1 Localize

26

Indicator Category

9.1.1 Park

9.1.2 Maintain

9.2.1 Maintain

9.2.2 Maintain

9.3.1 Maintain

9.3.2 Maintain

9.4.1 Maintain

9.5.1 Maintain

9.5.2 Park

9.a.1 Discard

9.b.1 Maintain

9.c.1 Park

Indicator Category

10.1.1 Maintain

10.2.1 Maintain

10.3.1 Maintain

10.4.1 Maintain

10.5.1 Discard

10.6.1 Discard

10.7.1 Discard

10.7.2 Discard

10.a.1 Discard

10.b.1 Discard

10.c.1 Park

Indicator Category

11.1.1 Proxy

11.2.1 Proxy

11.3.1 Maintain

11.3.2 Localize

11.4.1 Localize

11.5.1 Park

11.5.2 Park

11.6.1 Maintain

11.6.2 Maintain

11.7.1 Maintain

11.7.2 Maintain

11.a.1 Proxy

11.b.1 Park

11.b.2 Maintain

Indicator Category

12.1.1 Localize

12.2.1 Maintain

12.2.2 Maintain

12.3.1 Maintain

12.4.1 Discard

12.4.2 Maintain

12.5.1 Localize

12.6.1 Maintain

12.7.1 Localize

12.8.1 Park

12.a.1 Discard

12.b.1 Maintain

12.c.1 Discard

Indicator Category

27

13.1.1 Park

13.1.2 Park

13.1.3 Maintain

13.2.1 Localize

13.3.1 Park

13.3.2 Park

13.a.1 Discard

13.b.1 Discard

Indicator Category

14.1.1 Discard

14.2.1 Park

14.3.1 Discard

14.4.1 Park

14.5.1 Discard

14.6.1 Discard

14.7.1 Discard

14.a.1 Discard

14.b.1 Discard

14.c.1 Discard

Indicator Category

15.1.1 Maintain

15.1.2 Maintain

15.2.1 Proxy

15.3.1 Proxy

15.4.1 Discard

15.4.2 Discard

15.5.1 Maintain

15.6.1 Localize

15.7.1 Park

15.8.1 Localize

15.9.1 Localize

15.a.1 Maintain

15.b.1 Maintain

15.c.1 Park

Indicator Category

16.1.1 Maintain

16.1.2 Maintain

16.1.3 Maintain

16.1.4 Maintain

16.2.1 Maintain

16.2.2 Maintain

16.2.3 Maintain

16.3.1 Maintain

16.3.2 Maintain

16.4.1 Park

16.4.2 Park

16.5.1 Park

16.5.2 Park

16.6.1 Maintain

16.6.2 Maintain

16.7.1 Maintain

16.7.2 Maintain

16.8.1 Discard

16.9.1 Park

16.10.1 Park

16.10.2 Localize

16.a.1 Discard

16.b.1 Maintain

Indicator Category

17.1.1 Maintain

17.1.2 Maintain

17.2.1 Discard

28

17.3.1 Discard

17.3.2 Park

17.4.1 Park

17.5.1 Discard

17.6.1 Discard

17.6.2 Maintain

17.7.1 Discard

17.8.1 Maintain

17.9.1 Discard

17.10.1 Discard

17.11.1 Discard

17.12.1 Discard

17.13.1 Discard

17.14.1 Proxy

17.15.1 Discard

17.16.1 Localize

17.17.1 Maintain

17.18.1 Localize

17.18.2 Localize

17.18.3 Localize

17.19.1 Discard

17.19.2 Park